Heh, the "will" is the part of an organism that makes decisions. The range of possible decisions depends on the data available to that decision-engine. A purely deterministic set of data is always smaller than a set that includes access to random data. The key point is that if just one non-deterministic decision can be made, then the entire philosopy of Determinism is proved to be wrong, and free will becomes allowed, regardless of how we argue definitions.
No, you can't see how determinism can be linked to true randomness, if you write something like that. True randomness by definition has no Original Cause at all. The quantum energy fluctuations of the vacuum are truly random, according to the Bell Inequality experiments. So, if neurons can be affected by that, and if enough of them can be affected by that, the it follows that some neural signals have no "Original Cause", because the random events behind them have no Original Cause. And since we know the brain has lots and lots of neurons involved in the decision-making process, then to the extent that neurons can be influenced by random quantum events, it would logically follow that it is at least possible that some decisions can have no Original Cause, and thus qualify as non-determined or "free-willed". Because the most logical definition for "free will" is: "Freedom of Willpower", or, A Cause that is not itself an Effect" (has no Original Cause). Anything else is just another form of pure Determinism, so for humans to in-fact not have free will, it would be necessary for either quantum randomness to not actually be random, or for all neurons to be totally unaffected by any aspect of quantum randomness. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that free will can actually exist....
I should mention that if neurons can indeed be affected by quantum randomness, then Evolution would need to have provided some sort of filtering to be sure the random signals don't accidently/routinely overwhelm the purely deterministic signals required for such things as keeping a body's autonomic systems running. But this doesn't mean all those random signals are always filtered out completely!
The introduction of randomness into a system dramatically increases the POSSIBILITIES. Purely deterministic systems are inherently limited as to the possibilites. But give even a somewhat deterministic "ability to make choices" a greater list of choices, and that alone is a kind of freedom. An example of this comes from religious teachings, where it is supposedly superior to turn the other cheek than to strike a blow, as a response to receiving a blow. But where did the THOUGHT come from, regarding turning the other cheek?
The best way for any human to be perceived as an automaton-lacking-free-will, a pure stimulus-response machine, is to never take time to think of the possible options.
Re:That Quote Really Hit Home
on
The Big Questions
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
The part about free will is ignoring the fact that neurons are "fine" enough to be affected by such things as the Uncertainty Principle. This introduces some fundamental randomness in the system, which in turn means human actions are not necessarily purely deterministic.
Sounds a lot like this idea: Train-of-cars that was posted more than 4 years ago. Note that means certain elements are therefore in the Public Domain and cannot be patented.
Seems to me the answer is for the paywall to be a lower barrier. That is, any manufacturer knows there are usually two key price points for a given item: the price that leads to maximum sales, and the (higher) price that leads to maximum profits. It should be obvious that if a paywall is so high as to cause customers to prefer to go elsewhere, then profits suffer (bad business model). It should be equally obvious that a lower paywall would not turn away so many customers. And it is well known that some manufacturers have been willing to sacrifice the higher price point to increase market share. If news organizations need to pricify cybernews in order to survive, then the most obvious thing of all is that they shouldn't overdo it. Start out small, to keep as many customers as possible, and experiment with higher prices later. Note that when "later" arrives there might not be a need to raise prices. After all, it might be after the physical printing production plant has been closed down; why should online news subsidize print news that no longer exists?
It is well known that male homo sapies in general have been willing to indulge in sex with females of many nonhuman species. So, any female Neandertal that could be captured and gang-raped probably was.
Well, it would be 50% longer only when they actually needed to use the Lagrange satellites for communication with Mars. Most of the time the Sun is not in the way, so most of the time communications will be straight-line between Earth and Mars. Also, I might question the need for a SHORT additional delay in this communication; barring an SF gadget like an "ansible" it's not like we will ever being remotely controlling anything on Mars in real-time, since the minimum delay is always at least about 10 minutes.
I think you have partially misinterpreted what I was talking about. I think an appropriately designed kernel would allow an application to do anything that the kernel itself couldn't do. So, why does the kernel need to be able to do everything? Consolidation of abilities/code that gets duplicated across multiple applications? Maybe.
Perhaps a kind a middle ground between the microkernel and the macrokernel people could be found if a microkernel was designed to be extensible. Its core could be very robust and stable and therefore-seldom-modified. Each extension could become that way, one at a time....
I wonder how much of this problem can be traced to the original design philosophy regarding kernel size. There was a famous argument about whether or not a microkernal is superior. Well, it certainly is superior in one way: it is very bloat-resistant! Meanwhile, when you decide to add various appliances to a kernel, what is going to keep the kitchen sink from being added, too? That is, where do you draw the line, between what should be part of a kernel and what should merely be just another application?
TI is certainly mistaken about the reach of Copyright Law in this matter. Out of all the code in a calculator, which they might copyright, then according to that Law, it is:
A. Fair Use to publish two numbers!
B. Not Applicable if the numbers were never in the calculator code!
The only thing wrong about that report is the focus on nitrous oxide instead of hydrogen. Remember all the impetus toward a Hydrogen Economy? Well, hydrogen handling technologies are not perfect and do leak slightly (not dangerous at ground level). But all that leaking hydrogen will head straight up, and the ozone in the ozone layer happens to be "hypergolic" with hydrogen (reacts on contact).
Who needs WW3 to realize the value of land lines? Did you not watch War of the Worlds (the George Pal version)? Remember the scene when the power failed and the phones were out, also? Normally the average power failure does not affect the landline phone system because it is on a different electric circuit. Anyone who truly wants to "stay connected" in an emergency needs to consider that very likely the landlines will still work after a power failure, and continue to work even after the cell phone batteries die and cannot be recharged. (Even if you had a solar-power battery charger, what of the power for the cell towers?)
It may be OK for the landlines to be removed from service (lotta copper there, to recycle), but only AFTER the wireless networks are robust enough for people to stay connected in emergencies.
The problem with diesels is not the engine; it's the fuel. The percentage of a barrel of oil that can become diesel fuel is problematic. Haven't you noticed how the price of diesel used to be rather less than gasoline, but now is usually the same or even more? Some of that was because in the "old" days the demand for diesel was simply low, so a low price was the consequence. Then a lot of auto makers started selling diesel cars and demand for the fuel shot up against the limits of production capacity. There has since been time for capacity to increase, except now we have total global demand approaching/passing the limts of total global production. Don't expect the price to ever go back down to old levels.
Now if only they could be a bit more specific about that.
There is more than one way to "help", after all.
In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.
If the dude survives the cancer the drug will stop and eventually they might be able to request fingerprints from his foreign government, to finally find out if he is wanted for something done in the past.
Between this and the most recent decision regarding Rambus RAM designs, it should be obvious that no technology used as a standard should be SECRETLY encumbered by a patent. Signatories PLANNING on a Standard could be declared in violation (and lose all royalties thereby) if relevant patent data is not disclosed. That is, when planning on a Standard, every party wishing to participate needs to sign something up-front regarding relevant information and the patent process (or else). This of course won't prevent a Standard from devising something that was patented by someone outside of the working group, unknown to anyone in the group, but it would cut down on deliberate attempts to Standardize a patented thing.
From the lead article: "a set of potentially onerous monetary remedies for failures to comply with even modest license terms"
Just how difficult is it to comply with modest open source license terms? The more a law firm can manage to get you to think that task is tougher than it really is, the more $$ it can charge you.
IF this is accurate: "The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry."
THEN the fix is simple: "The textbooks should say that all so-far-studied life on Earth is descended from common ancestry."
There are two much simpler proofs, although I don't know about considering the "universe" as a free-willed entity.
A1. Start with the notion that free will does not exist.
A2. The law of cause-and-effect therefore controls all events.
A3. "All events" is a series that can be traced backward through time.
A4. What caused the FIRST event?
A5. If it had a cause, then you haven't arrived at (A4) yet; go back to (A3).
A6. If it had no cause, then that violates (A2) above, implying some events can occur without being caused (essence of free will).
B. Alternately, just look at the randomness in Quantum Mechanics. We have experimental proof (via the Bell Inequality) that events can happen without cause; therefore to the extent that biological systems can tap into that randomness at the molecular/atomic/quantum level, those biological systems can use that to exhibit behaviors outside any purely macroscopic cause-and-effect sequence.
I would prefer to obtain physical media, because it can last longer. I'm talking about the inherent much longer lifespan of a stamped-out CD compared to the bit-rot of a CDR (and the equivalent comparison for DVD and BluRay data media). Only after they perfect a consumer-friendly data-storage system of high capacity and enormous lifespan, would I be willing to change this opinion. Magneto-Optical media comes close (but its storage capacity hasn't kept up with the times, and some of its manufacturers have been leaving the market).
Slashdot Mirror
Goodbye to analog land lines, OK. Hello, digital fiber-optic landlines! Because they can reliably carry lots more information than wireless.
Heh, the "will" is the part of an organism that makes decisions. The range of possible decisions depends on the data available to that decision-engine. A purely deterministic set of data is always smaller than a set that includes access to random data. The key point is that if just one non-deterministic decision can be made, then the entire philosopy of Determinism is proved to be wrong, and free will becomes allowed, regardless of how we argue definitions.
No, you can't see how determinism can be linked to true randomness, if you write something like that. True randomness by definition has no Original Cause at all. The quantum energy fluctuations of the vacuum are truly random, according to the Bell Inequality experiments. So, if neurons can be affected by that, and if enough of them can be affected by that, the it follows that some neural signals have no "Original Cause", because the random events behind them have no Original Cause. And since we know the brain has lots and lots of neurons involved in the decision-making process, then to the extent that neurons can be influenced by random quantum events, it would logically follow that it is at least possible that some decisions can have no Original Cause, and thus qualify as non-determined or "free-willed". Because the most logical definition for "free will" is: "Freedom of Willpower", or, A Cause that is not itself an Effect" (has no Original Cause). Anything else is just another form of pure Determinism, so for humans to in-fact not have free will, it would be necessary for either quantum randomness to not actually be random, or for all neurons to be totally unaffected by any aspect of quantum randomness. Nevertheless, the available evidence suggests that free will can actually exist....
I should mention that if neurons can indeed be affected by quantum randomness, then Evolution would need to have provided some sort of filtering to be sure the random signals don't accidently/routinely overwhelm the purely deterministic signals required for such things as keeping a body's autonomic systems running. But this doesn't mean all those random signals are always filtered out completely!
The introduction of randomness into a system dramatically increases the POSSIBILITIES. Purely deterministic systems are inherently limited as to the possibilites. But give even a somewhat deterministic "ability to make choices" a greater list of choices, and that alone is a kind of freedom. An example of this comes from religious teachings, where it is supposedly superior to turn the other cheek than to strike a blow, as a response to receiving a blow. But where did the THOUGHT come from, regarding turning the other cheek?
The best way for any human to be perceived as an automaton-lacking-free-will, a pure stimulus-response machine, is to never take time to think of the possible options.
The part about free will is ignoring the fact that neurons are "fine" enough to be affected by such things as the Uncertainty Principle. This introduces some fundamental randomness in the system, which in turn means human actions are not necessarily purely deterministic.
Sounds a lot like this idea: Train-of-cars that was posted more than 4 years ago. Note that means certain elements are therefore in the Public Domain and cannot be patented.
Seems to me the answer is for the paywall to be a lower barrier. That is, any manufacturer knows there are usually two key price points for a given item: the price that leads to maximum sales, and the (higher) price that leads to maximum profits. It should be obvious that if a paywall is so high as to cause customers to prefer to go elsewhere, then profits suffer (bad business model). It should be equally obvious that a lower paywall would not turn away so many customers. And it is well known that some manufacturers have been willing to sacrifice the higher price point to increase market share. If news organizations need to pricify cybernews in order to survive, then the most obvious thing of all is that they shouldn't overdo it. Start out small, to keep as many customers as possible, and experiment with higher prices later. Note that when "later" arrives there might not be a need to raise prices. After all, it might be after the physical printing production plant has been closed down; why should online news subsidize print news that no longer exists?
It is well known that male homo sapies in general have been willing to indulge in sex with females of many nonhuman species. So, any female Neandertal that could be captured and gang-raped probably was.
Well, it would be 50% longer only when they actually needed to use the Lagrange satellites for communication with Mars. Most of the time the Sun is not in the way, so most of the time communications will be straight-line between Earth and Mars. Also, I might question the need for a SHORT additional delay in this communication; barring an SF gadget like an "ansible" it's not like we will ever being remotely controlling anything on Mars in real-time, since the minimum delay is always at least about 10 minutes.
Time to get the torrents ready....
I think you have partially misinterpreted what I was talking about. I think an appropriately designed kernel would allow an application to do anything that the kernel itself couldn't do. So, why does the kernel need to be able to do everything? Consolidation of abilities/code that gets duplicated across multiple applications? Maybe. Perhaps a kind a middle ground between the microkernel and the macrokernel people could be found if a microkernel was designed to be extensible. Its core could be very robust and stable and therefore-seldom-modified. Each extension could become that way, one at a time....
I wonder how much of this problem can be traced to the original design philosophy regarding kernel size. There was a famous argument about whether or not a microkernal is superior. Well, it certainly is superior in one way: it is very bloat-resistant! Meanwhile, when you decide to add various appliances to a kernel, what is going to keep the kitchen sink from being added, too? That is, where do you draw the line, between what should be part of a kernel and what should merely be just another application?
TI is certainly mistaken about the reach of Copyright Law in this matter. Out of all the code in a calculator, which they might copyright, then according to that Law, it is:
A. Fair Use to publish two numbers!
B. Not Applicable if the numbers were never in the calculator code!
The only thing wrong about that report is the focus on nitrous oxide instead of hydrogen. Remember all the impetus toward a Hydrogen Economy? Well, hydrogen handling technologies are not perfect and do leak slightly (not dangerous at ground level). But all that leaking hydrogen will head straight up, and the ozone in the ozone layer happens to be "hypergolic" with hydrogen (reacts on contact).
Who needs WW3 to realize the value of land lines? Did you not watch War of the Worlds (the George Pal version)? Remember the scene when the power failed and the phones were out, also? Normally the average power failure does not affect the landline phone system because it is on a different electric circuit. Anyone who truly wants to "stay connected" in an emergency needs to consider that very likely the landlines will still work after a power failure, and continue to work even after the cell phone batteries die and cannot be recharged. (Even if you had a solar-power battery charger, what of the power for the cell towers?)
It may be OK for the landlines to be removed from service (lotta copper there, to recycle), but only AFTER the wireless networks are robust enough for people to stay connected in emergencies.
The problem with diesels is not the engine; it's the fuel. The percentage of a barrel of oil that can become diesel fuel is problematic. Haven't you noticed how the price of diesel used to be rather less than gasoline, but now is usually the same or even more? Some of that was because in the "old" days the demand for diesel was simply low, so a low price was the consequence. Then a lot of auto makers started selling diesel cars and demand for the fuel shot up against the limits of production capacity. There has since been time for capacity to increase, except now we have total global demand approaching/passing the limts of total global production. Don't expect the price to ever go back down to old levels.
Now if only they could be a bit more specific about that.
There is more than one way to "help", after all.
In this case, why do they insist on fingerprints to identify someone?
Sure, they might want to know if the person they are holding already has a record.
If not, though, then certainly they are creating a new record, right?
So, gather retinal scans, voice prints, DNA samples, whatever.
Those will suffice if captured after doing something in the future.
If the dude survives the cancer the drug will stop and eventually they might be able to request fingerprints from his foreign government, to finally find out if he is wanted for something done in the past.
The French have made bombs, too, and they are big on breeder reactors that produce (and consume) lots of plutonium.
Between this and the most recent decision regarding Rambus RAM designs, it should be obvious that no technology used as a standard should be SECRETLY encumbered by a patent. Signatories PLANNING on a Standard could be declared in violation (and lose all royalties thereby) if relevant patent data is not disclosed. That is, when planning on a Standard, every party wishing to participate needs to sign something up-front regarding relevant information and the patent process (or else). This of course won't prevent a Standard from devising something that was patented by someone outside of the working group, unknown to anyone in the group, but it would cut down on deliberate attempts to Standardize a patented thing.
From the lead article: "a set of potentially onerous monetary remedies for failures to comply with even modest license terms"
Just how difficult is it to comply with modest open source license terms? The more a law firm can manage to get you to think that task is tougher than it really is, the more $$ it can charge you.
IF this is accurate: "The proposed curriculum change would prompt teachers to raise doubts that all life on Earth is descended from common ancestry."
THEN the fix is simple: "The textbooks should say that all so-far-studied life on Earth is descended from common ancestry."
I've been expecting something like that for years. Here's a proposed solution.
There are two much simpler proofs, although I don't know about considering the "universe" as a free-willed entity.
A1. Start with the notion that free will does not exist.
A2. The law of cause-and-effect therefore controls all events.
A3. "All events" is a series that can be traced backward through time.
A4. What caused the FIRST event?
A5. If it had a cause, then you haven't arrived at (A4) yet; go back to (A3).
A6. If it had no cause, then that violates (A2) above, implying some events can occur without being caused (essence of free will).
B. Alternately, just look at the randomness in Quantum Mechanics. We have experimental proof (via the Bell Inequality) that events can happen without cause; therefore to the extent that biological systems can tap into that randomness at the molecular/atomic/quantum level, those biological systems can use that to exhibit behaviors outside any purely macroscopic cause-and-effect sequence.
No, just the squirrels.
I would prefer to obtain physical media, because it can last longer. I'm talking about the inherent much longer lifespan of a stamped-out CD compared to the bit-rot of a CDR (and the equivalent comparison for DVD and BluRay data media). Only after they perfect a consumer-friendly data-storage system of high capacity and enormous lifespan, would I be willing to change this opinion. Magneto-Optical media comes close (but its storage capacity hasn't kept up with the times, and some of its manufacturers have been leaving the market).